If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   FISA judge orders declassification of secret court opinions justifying constitutionality of NSA surveillance programs   (theguardian.com) divider line 47
    More: Spiffy, FISA, NSA, secret polices, constitutionality, declassification, Jameel Jaffer, southern district  
•       •       •

2016 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2013 at 7:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-15 11:28:35 AM
5 votes:

Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?


You might not be, but a LOT of people are. My list of 'chicken shiat bootlicking yellow' farkers went up a millionty % after the Snowden thing. Farkers I general found to be reasonable; from non-insane 'conservatives' to general moderates to kinda progressives to raving lefties LOST THEIR MOTHERFARKING SHIAT over this topic.

Maybe it was the perception of Snowden, a semi-hipster looking guy that triggered some visceral unconscious hate. I don't know.  But it was INSANE. The crazy list of reasons to reject anything to do with the release seemed to include:

1) But you give your info to Google/corporations so this is OK!
2) Only the bad guys will be hurt, so this is OK!
3) No one cares what you are doing so this is OK!
4) Privacy is stupid and quaint so this is OK!
5) We already should have known this was happening so this is OK!
6) The PATRIOT Act makes it legal so this is OK!
7) You're paranoid, so this is OK!
8) But Terrorism, so this is OK!
9) FISA court, so this is OK!
10) Greenwald is a hack, so this is OK
11) Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper, so this is OK!
12) Everyone else is doing it too, so this is OK!
13) Snowden should have stayed for a Kangaroo court trial to be tortured like Manning is, so this is OK!
14) Snowden isn't just like Ellsberg, so this is OK!
15) Stazi style surveillance, COINTELPRO, Gulf of Tonkin, Hoover's lists, Watergate etc. etc. are SO yesterday, so this is OK!

And on and on.

/The bootlicking cognitivedissonance is breathtaking.
//And Scary.
///And Sad.
2013-09-14 11:44:05 PM
4 votes:

Honest Bender: WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?


Well, I'm incredibly glad he did what he did. I WANT to know when my government is f*cking me over. However, I still want to see him tried and convicted just like Manning. They did break the law, but I'm glad both of them did it. With Manning, you saw how the government covers up war crimes (accidents *cough* *cough*) and how our diplomatic cables show we act like complete assholes in a lot of ways. We knew that, but it's nice to see the proof and remind some of the wet brains from time to time, even if they won't listen.

They violated MAJOR secrecy laws. When I got my TS/SCI clearance, they investigated everything about me and then I had to sit down with some fat dude from OPM and tell him all my deepest darkest secrets. People who violate those laws have gotten lots of people killed.

However, especially in the Snowden case, and less so in the Manning case, these were not attempts to harm but inform the public about what violent and powerful men do in the middle of the night on our behalf. Some thing I'm ok not knowing about. Using our own foreign intelligence gathering assets on you and me with absolutely no cause? No. I want to know about that and I'm glad it happened.

Him going to Russia has made it a lot harder to make it a case that he was looking out for America, though. They get to use a lot of propaganda against him.

Will people get harmed by these two data leaks? I'm pretty sure they have. But the alternative is not knowing and that is a far greater crime.
2013-09-15 08:27:26 AM
3 votes:

MurphyMurphy: If good reform ever makes it through this mile deep quagmire of shiat,

the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.


/Yeah, he broke the rules. But if you want to make an omelet....
//I'll take a crime of truth by an individual over a crime of deception by my government ANY day of the week.


Nothing is delicious about any of this.  Anybody who delights in any of this is yet another consumer of bullsh*t.  you can be as outraged as you want, but typically, the more outraged you are, the more full of sh*t you are.  Here's the truth of the matter:

*  The NSA is a bloated, redundant, obsolete government program.
*  They are aware of this
*  Everybody with a brain assumed this
*  The fact that they hired a complete imbecile like Snowden without vetting him is evidence of this
*  The fact that they invented top secret yet wasteful programs to keep the imbeciles they hired busy, only to fill their vicious cycle of a funding quota is evidence of this
*  Everybody with a brain has been vindicated
*  The NSA is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves
*  So will the PATRIOT Act

 If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point.  This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it.  It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.

This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.
2013-09-14 11:28:39 PM
3 votes:
He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

i1.kym-cdn.com

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?
2013-09-15 11:31:37 AM
2 votes:

freak7: Where in the Constitution does it say you can't have your phone calls screened for certain keywords?

Here's a hint, it's not up to you to decide what constitutes an unreasonable search.


4th amendment.  And I don't decide what constitutes unreasonable. An unreasonable search is one not backed by a warrant issued by a judge, backed by probably cause.

If the NSA wants to snoop my phone calls, then they need to have a reasonable suspicion that I'm breaking the law and they need to swear to that to a judge. The judge reviews their evidence to decide if a warrant is justified.  If he agrees that it looks like I'm breaking the law, THEN the NSA gets to snoop my phone calls (or email or whatever).

That's how it works.
2013-09-15 11:15:05 AM
2 votes:
What will be released:

cdn.cultofmac.com
2013-09-15 10:02:43 AM
2 votes:

NewportBarGuy: $20 says he wants to clear the court and show the NSA violated their order(s).

CYA all the way.


Either that, or it will look something like this.

The  ██████████████ ████████ ████████  and  ████████  ████████    ████████ ████████ ████████

 for  ████████ ████████ ████████ .
2013-09-15 09:22:54 AM
2 votes:

Honest Bender: He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).


You're missing the point. They're not violations because they're legal, sanctified by a court. Like it or not they are legal.

Now, if the law is unconstitutional then that's has to work it's way through the courts too. (and should) But no one should kid themselves thinking the NSA just did whatever the hell it wanted. They're hypersensitive to legalities and lean on their lawyers and FISA to give them the green light.

And we could always ask Congress to undue their stupid law.
2013-09-15 09:16:08 AM
2 votes:

hardinparamedic: thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

thamike: Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.

I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had. 

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.


The spirit doesn't mean jack shiat. If they used a loophole to avoid technically breaking the law, then they didn't break the law.

People seem to think that saying the NSA didn't break the law means agreeing with the NSA's methods. It very obviously does not: 'Legal' and 'right' are not the same thing.
2013-09-15 09:00:22 AM
2 votes:

max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.


That make secret rulings and determine the limits of privacy and individual security with decisions that you cannot discuss or appeal.

I understand and agree that we need something like the NSA and FISA as the world we live in is not a nice place. However, that does not mean that the specific forms they have taken are appropriate or constitutional.

The idea of secret courts making secret findings about the constitution is incredibly disturbing.
2013-09-15 08:24:25 AM
2 votes:

vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.


Actually, I would have thought a lot more of Snowden had he just revealed domestic spying activities. 

In that sense, I've come to the conclusion that he's something we needed. That needed to be thrown back in our faces, as I've made the point time and time again we allowed a continual slide into what we have today through our apathy and fear of "terrorism" over the last decade+.

That said, the point I stopped respecting him is the point that foreign intelligence operations and espionage operations against foreign countries also were leaked.
2013-09-15 07:51:08 AM
2 votes:
If good reform ever makes it through this mile deep quagmire of shiat,

the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.


/Yeah, he broke the rules. But if you want to make an omelet....
//I'll take a crime of truth by an individual over a crime of deception by my government ANY day of the week.
2013-09-14 11:24:08 PM
2 votes:
$20 says he wants to clear the court and show the NSA violated their order(s).

CYA all the way.
2013-09-14 11:06:13 PM
2 votes:
Next week's headline: FISA judge found dead from multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of the head from a double-action revolver and/or bolt-action rifle.
2013-09-15 05:09:32 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?


You didn't answer my question. Who, specifically, is calling Snowden a "traitor", but ignoring the FISA court abuses and NSA spying on domestic citizens? In my experience, even the people who have a flagrant hatred for Snowden are appalled at what the NSA is doing, even if it's only just to hurt the guy in office.
2013-09-15 04:22:46 PM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.

Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.


Continuing to do so doesn't help your case, whatever that may be.
2013-09-15 04:17:21 PM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.

Thanks for setting me straight. We live in a perfect world with no power imbalances, or corruption. To take action outside the proscribed state sanctioned methods or to voice opinions outside a court of law or a legislators office is a rash and foolish act of anger. You are so smart and right.


I see you have still avoided my question: what do you propose be done to open the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the US intelligence agencies?
2013-09-15 03:42:56 PM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?


I can't speak for the other bootlicker, but my point is that if you are too unacquainted with how government works to form a valid set of solutions, extrapolating a detailed civics discussion into a bare bones philosophical debate about the nature of existence isn't going to fool anyone with an education.

I am truly sympathetic with your plight as an angry guy with a keyboard, but Knowing F*ck All about the Things that Scare You isn't somehow sage in the face of Reason, no matter how many times the angry guy on the TV keeps justifying that sort of behavior.

Having an opinion means absolutely nothing unless it is based on fact and has an actual purpose.  If you want to rant, that's fine, this is Fark.  But please, for your own sake, stop pretending that ranting is some form of valid discourse.
2013-09-15 03:23:22 PM
1 votes:

mofa: Why does the article not capitalize FISA?  It's not a word.


According to The Guardian's style guide, they "use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser and, more recently, asbo, pin number and sim card. Note that pdf and plc are lowercase."
2013-09-15 03:18:59 PM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: thamike: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

This defies even a grammar school education.

LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.

You two get a room and lick each other's boots, m'kay.

Your points are no one should say anything about rampant abuse of power, because, apparently vague interpretations of dubious laws haven't been totally and officially struck down from the highest court in the land?

That's not how democracy works, civics boy. It's a lot more messy than that. This pusillanimous apologist rhetoric for state abuse of power by your ilk is sickening. We all know how courts and congress work. Some of us just don't think we should shrug our shoulders, condemn dissidents, and defend the status quo just because it's the status quo.

/BTW, how do you get the taste of that much shoe polish out of your mouth?


I do want the status quo. I want the FISC to be more transparent and I want our intelligence agencies to have their scope limited. I understand that the route for this is through legislative means. If you don't like a law you can biatch and moan about it on the Internet or you can try to get it changed.

You have not answered my question: what do you propose be done to open up the FISC to more transparency and to limit the capabilities of our intelligence agencies?
2013-09-15 03:00:13 PM
1 votes:

LordJiro: Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We live in the U.S., Home of the Gutless Chickenshiats and Land of the STFU and Take It Like a Good biatch. Well, unless SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me.

Also Home of the Raging Dumbasses who Failed Civics.


Apparently wanting the government to changes its policies through the means determined by the constitution is "taking it like a good biatch".

I would like to ask Serious what he believes should happen to open up the FISC to transparency and limit the capabilities of the intelligence agencies if not changes in legislation?
2013-09-15 02:26:55 PM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: max_pooper: Serious Post on Serious Thread: vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.

Nobody needs to assume consitutionality. These laws are consititional. Warrant applications have been brought before a federal court made up of judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and not once have any of the judges ruled the law under which these warrants are issued is unconstitutional.

These laws are, according to the judicial branch of United States, within the allowances set forth by the Consitition of the United States of America. These laws can be challenged infront of the final arbiter of consititutionality: the Supreme Court. But they are unlikely to disagree with the FISA court since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has yet to remove and replace a single judge on said court for erroneous rulings.

The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.

I see your GED in Law is serving you well. Shiat tons of warranted surveillance techniques have ultimately been ruled unconstitutional. Spike taps, thermal imaging, regardless, NO the SCOTUS isn't just made up of the Chief Justice, so saying he appoints them so whatever they do is auto-ok is WRONG. Likewise that changing the law by Congressional act is the only option is WRONG. How does it feel to just be so damn WRONG.


I am not wrong. The NSA surveillance methods are currently legal and consitituional. It does not mean that the Supreme Court could declare it so but that is unlikely due to the current make up of the court.

Congress changing the laws to either make the FISC more transparent or to limit the activities of intelligence agencies is pretty much the only option. biatch and moan all you want but if your grievances are not directed towards Congress you are wasting your breath.
2013-09-15 01:21:31 PM
1 votes:

cman: Hero?

Judge is doing his damn job

/we attach hero to Garbagemen, so that word is about as useless as "racist"


I'm confused, I have you favorited with the tag "a Libertarian I can talk to". Isn't freedom from Government surveillance (4th amendment, common Law, third amendment) and Unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment, common Law)  rights you are concerned about?  Are your Libertarian tenancies only concerned with the freedom of businesses to do what ever they like in the pursuit of money?

Not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just confused and would like to know why you take this stand.
2013-09-15 12:32:57 PM
1 votes:

HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.



They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.


Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.
2013-09-15 12:14:05 PM
1 votes:

max_pooper: The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.


I kind of like the way the courts are handling it.  We are actually seeing all the branches of government applying the checks and balances that they were conceived to apply, and because every televisionado has this fixation with reacting to any information they weren't previously privy to as unprecedented concepts, we have dramatic public fallout anytime anything happens.

I'll concede that 2001-2009 might have numbed our ability to see government oversight actually happen and it is ugly but worth it, but hell.
2013-09-15 12:03:26 PM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.


Nobody needs to assume consitutionality. These laws are consititional. Warrant applications have been brought before a federal court made up of judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and not once have any of the judges ruled the law under which these warrants are issued is unconstitutional.

These laws are, according to the judicial branch of United States, within the allowances set forth by the Consitition of the United States of America. These laws can be challenged infront of the final arbiter of consititutionality: the Supreme Court. But they are unlikely to disagree with the FISA court since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has yet to remove and replace a single judge on said court for erroneous rulings.

The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.
2013-09-15 11:39:36 AM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: 1) But you give your info to Google/corporations so this is OK!
2) Only the bad guys will be hurt, so this is OK!
3) No one cares what you are doing so this is OK!
4) Privacy is stupid and quaint so this is OK!
5) We already should have known this was happening so this is OK!
6) The PATRIOT Act makes it legal so this is OK!
7) You're paranoid, so this is OK!
8) But Terrorism, so this is OK!
9) FISA court, so this is OK!
10) Greenwald is a hack, so this is OK
11) Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper, so this is OK!
12) Everyone else is doing it too, so this is OK!
13) Snowden should have stayed for a Kangaroo court trial to be tortured like Manning is, so this is OK!
14) Snowden isn't just like Ellsberg, so this is OK!
15) Stazi style surveillance, COINTELPRO, Gulf of Tonkin, Hoover's lists, Watergate etc. etc. are SO yesterday, so this is OK!


Anybody who rejects anything about this uncovered info and government oversight is an asshole. Then again, anybody who is both surprised yet inexplicably vindicated by this information is delusional.
2013-09-15 11:08:49 AM
1 votes:

badhatharry: MurphyMurphy: badhatharry: Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)
All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)

I would imagine so. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


You are entitled to your opinions on constitutionality but you have no authority. The judicial branch has deemed these actions constitutional save for any final decision by the Supreme Court. Until that happens or congress passes new legislation the activities of the NSA are constitutional and legal.

This is very basic civics.
2013-09-15 10:14:19 AM
1 votes:

thamike: If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point. This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it. It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.

This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.


"Nothing to see here people! Move along, move along..."

How do you know who I know? :P

Seriously though, how can you even make a statement like that?

As has been repeated more than a thousand times over in these discussions, no one really knows the scope of jack shiat at this point. The evidence suggests the intelligence gathered from these programs has exceeded their mandate within the organization and even if it didn't, we have evidence the intelligence has traveled beyond the organization itself and is being leaked to extra-NSA groups which falls compeltely outside the alleged oversight mechanics over the NSA itself.

A sane discussion is found in the rational middle as hardin pointed out. You decry people insisting on an extreme interpretation of the events but you are doing the same thing.

Your insistance there is nothing more to it than a typical D.C. bureaucratic mess is as retarded on its face as someone who suggests the NSA is after them personally and every action they take is an attack on their 'sovereign citizenry'.

And the audacity to state that no one's privacy concerns are applicable here?... wow. Troll on, man.

thamike: Maybe you should wait for those people to show up. Then you can have the calm yet illuminating conversation you are so obviously seeking.


Did you just post compeltely seperate replies back to back against one of my posts? lol

At this point I don't think you need me here, you seem capable of holding the conversation all by yourself. Between yourself and yourself.
2013-09-15 10:06:35 AM
1 votes:

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?


What is legal is not always right. Just as what is right is not always legal. Why is that such a hard concept for you chucklefarks to understand?

Pointing out that the NSA broke no laws, while Snowden *did* break the law, is NOT justifying the NSA's actions. It's saying that the law needs to be farking fixed.
2013-09-15 10:04:47 AM
1 votes:

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?


You know there is a difference between illegal and unjust correct?

There are plenty of people that wish for the intilligence agencies to be reigned in that understand that what they are doing is currently legal.
2013-09-15 10:01:30 AM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?
2013-09-15 09:33:04 AM
1 votes:

vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.


I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.
2013-09-15 09:27:00 AM
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: However, especially in the Snowden case, and less so in the Manning case, these were not attempts to harm but inform the public about what violent and powerful men do in the middle of the night on our behalf. Some thing I'm ok not knowing about. Using our own foreign intelligence gathering assets on you and me with absolutely no cause? No. I want to know about that and I'm glad it happened.


Snowden went into the job "knowing what the government was up to" and cherry-picking his information. He wasn't an analyst, like he claimed, and is basing his conclusion on a subset of documents and doesn't include any of the instruction that comes with being part of a program. Combine that with his statements about US spying contradicting the documents he released, and it's amazing people are so easily hoodwinked when they're told a story they believe is already true.

Him going to Russia has made it a lot harder to make it a case that he was looking out for America, though. They get to use a lot of propaganda against him.

Well, it certainly makes his statement that he refuses to live in a society that allows that kind of surveillance an outright lie. I mean, it's not like he was taking off in an airplane with US security agents driving down the runway in pursuit a la the movie Argo. He could have easily booked a flight for Ecuador to begin with.
2013-09-15 09:23:26 AM
1 votes:

max_pooper: For the record, I stand in that middle ground. I don't believe the NSA should be doing what they are doing but I believe they are operating under the law which is why I believe Snowden is the only one who broke the law. biatching about the NSA or the President or the FISA court doesn't address who is at fault. Congress is the only body that can change the law to specifically make these practices illegal.


Notice that nobody's b*tching about their telecoms selling them out without notification.  No, that would make them bad consumers.  And that's just a totally unpalatable revelation.
2013-09-15 09:23:16 AM
1 votes:

bindlestiff2600: time was, helping a slave to escape was against the law
helping to catch the slave was legal
so     not impressed


There's a difference between helping the slave escape, and giving the British a landing zone in the South Carolina beaches.
2013-09-15 09:22:12 AM
1 votes:

bindlestiff2600: max_pooper:

snip
snip

Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

time was, helping a slave to escape was against the law
helping to catch the slave was legal
so     not impressed


"Time was" indeed. You have noticed that those laws do not exist any more. The laws that the NSA and FISA court operate under can be changed as well. Until then, they are the law of the land.
2013-09-15 09:21:23 AM
1 votes:

LordJiro: The spirit doesn't mean jack shiat. If they used a loophole to avoid technically breaking the law, then they didn't break the law.

People seem to think that saying the NSA didn't break the law means agreeing with the NSA's methods. It very obviously does not: 'Legal' and 'right' are not the same thing.


Right.  It's all in the game, yo.  Snowden got bored of playing for the NSA, and the DoJ got tired of the NSA's game.

This idea of shock and outrage at the lack of government transparency--in the face of unprecedented government transparency--leaves me with little to no sympathy for either side of the warring factions of The Rended Garment Collective.
2013-09-15 09:15:52 AM
1 votes:
max_pooper:

snip
snip

Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

time was, helping a slave to escape was against the law
helping to catch the slave was legal
so     not impressed
2013-09-15 09:09:36 AM
1 votes:

thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.


I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

thamike: Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.


I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had. 

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.


Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.


The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.
2013-09-15 09:04:21 AM
1 votes:

ghare: Tyrone Slothrop: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

People don't like a snitch.

Exactly. No one should ever tell on anyone, anywhere, ever. Especially if laws are being broken. Especially if the government is breaking them. No sir.


The difference being that the Judicial Branch determined that the Executive Branch did not break the law written by the Legislative Branch. The only next step is for the Legislative Branch to reign in these practices with additional legislation which they have so far refused to do.

Snowden is the only one who broke the law.
2013-09-15 08:58:31 AM
1 votes:

Tyrone Slothrop: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

People don't like a snitch.


Exactly. No one should ever tell on anyone, anywhere, ever. Especially if laws are being broken. Especially if the government is breaking them. No sir.
2013-09-15 08:44:21 AM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: Would you care to expand on "why anyone with a brain would think the NSA is an obsolete program" when their entire existence is dedicated to SIGINT?

I'm curious about your insane troll logic on this one?


"Troll" has no purpose here.  And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now.  I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.


hardinparamedic: No, quite frankly that's utter bullshiat. Someone can be aghast that these events occurred, and still have a problem with some of the motives and amount of unrelated information that was released along with it.


Being aghast is a vocation it seems.

Pot, kettle. Also, if this was about finding waste and abuse, why did Snowden release information about foreign intelligence operations by the NSA which were completely legal and within their charter to perform?

Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.

I don't think anyone other than you at this point in the thread is trying to make this personal. Turn the projector off, and let's talk.

I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.


Maybe you should wait for those people to show up.  Then you can have the calm yet illuminating conversation you are so obviously seeking.
2013-09-15 08:33:14 AM
1 votes:

thamike: The NSA is a bloated, redundant, obsolete government program.
*  They are aware of this
*  Everybody with a brain assumed this


Would you care to expand on "why anyone with a brain would think the NSA is an obsolete program" when their entire existence is dedicated to SIGINT?

I'm curious about your insane troll logic on this one?

thamike: The NSA is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves
*  So will the PATRIOT Act


Not denying that at all.

thamike: If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point.


No, quite frankly that's utter bullshiat. Someone can be aghast that these events occurred, and still have a problem with some of the motives and amount of unrelated information that was released along with it.

thamike: This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it.  It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.


Pot, kettle. Also, if this was about finding waste and abuse, why did Snowden release information about foreign intelligence operations by the NSA which were completely legal and within their charter to perform?

thamike: This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.


I don't think anyone other than you at this point in the thread is trying to make this personal. Turn the projector off, and let's talk.
2013-09-15 08:19:20 AM
1 votes:
This is a big step. Having secret courts rule on what's legal or not is no way to run a democracy. Or a republic, for all of you pedants out there.
2013-09-15 08:13:26 AM
1 votes:

DrPainMD: derpderpderp


Why is it so many Republicans seem to be sociopaths?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-15 07:44:04 AM
1 votes:
Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report